Lack of meaningful Passenger Rail service outside the Quebec-Windsor Corridor

[Urban Sky]

Flights are a bit of a red herring, and I'll give a real world example of why.
You are a business professional who lives in Timmins. The bus is seen as beneath you, so you will either drive or fly. You need to go to SSM for business.
1) There are no direct flights SSM - Timmins.
2) The only flight would be Timmins - Toronto - SSM.
3) Precovid, there was a flight Timmins - Sudbury - SSM.

Why did that fight not return? Pilot shortage.

So, would a business professional in Toronto or Ottawa take a Megabus? Likely not.

If you (unwisely) insist on centring your argument for daily non-Corridor passenger trains on its (barely existing) green credentials, you need to look at those modes which are even more polluting - and these are the car and the plane, not the bus...

I am missing something in your calculations. Without the passengers calculated into it, what is the fuel consumption of a train?

I'm afraid that's why I refuse to call machine/equipment operators "engineers", because an actual engineer (and I hope: also the majority of people with at least a Highschool diploma) will have no trouble figuring out that you need to multiply a per-passenger figure with the passenger count to obtain the total, but let me help you with that:

• For the corridor, the estimated fuel-efficiency was 2.1 litres per 100 passenger-km, assuming a passenger load of 156 people, which translates to a fuel consumption of 327.6 litres per 100 train-km.
• For the Northlander, the estimated fuel-efficiency would be 5.7 litres per 100 passenger-km, assuming a passenger load of 41 people, which translates to a fuel consumption of 233.7 litres per 100 train-km.
• To recall, a North American "motorcoach" has a fuel consumption of 36.8 litres per 100 bus-km, thus 9 times less than a Corridor train and 7 times less the Northlander.

The only way to make passenger trains "greener" than a bus is to pack hundreds of passengers into a single train and to make sure that a significant proportion of these passengers come from more polluting modes rather than the bus (or induced demand)...

I am diving into the world of crazy....

I'm afraid you crossed that border many years ago without ever looking back, which is why I'm not very hopeful that you'd find the way back should you ever try it. That's what allows you to believe that asking your MP as a single constituent for demands which would require billions in upfront capital subsidies and hundreds of millions annually in operating subsidies (where investing a quarter of that amount into a nationwide publicly-funded bus network would have a dramatically higher effect on ridership and achieving green goals) will make you appear as rational or even reasonable:

I don't want to come off as a fanatic. I want to come off as a voter who would like options that are reasonable. I want to be taken serious. That is why daily and reversing cuts are all I am going after. If that was the only thing that was to happen, I would be quite happy.

Oh, and the same goes for not even bothering to mention to your MP that the feverish investment spree you are asking for would have almost no effect unless the federal government also commits to the most radical change of course in post-war industry policy:

The CN delays need to be fixed before any expansion of Via outside of the Corridor. It is the single biggest problem that will cause people to not use it.

Ottawa should consider train passenger bill of rights, Via Rail CEO says - National | Globalnews.ca

In an interview, CEO Mario Peloquin says the federal government should move toward a charter that would ensure train passengers receive compensation for long delays.

globalnews.ca

 

[micheal_can]

Reatoring VIA to daily and restoring the 1990 transcon cuts will get you labelled as crazy then and there. I would lead with the 1990 intercity cuts and leave the transcons for later in the discussion.

- Paul

It very well may, but at least I can say I tried. Maybe when the CPC get a majority I will reach out to the new MP as well and they might want it as a way to show they can reverse all the bad things the Liberals have done.....

 

[micheal_can]

If you (unwisely) insist on centring your argument for daily non-Corridor passenger trains on its (barely existing) green credentials, you need to look at those modes which are even more polluting - and these are the car and the plane, not the bus...

To assume that I will only use 'green credentials' as the only argument or as the biggest reason ignores other reasons that I have stated. This is merely one of the many arguments for it.

I'm afraid that's why I refuse to call machine/equipment operators "engineers", because an actual engineer (and I hope: also the majority of people with at least a Highschool diploma) will have no trouble figuring out that you need to multiply a per-passenger figure with the passenger count to obtain the total, but let me help you with that:

• For the corridor, the estimated fuel-efficiency was 2.1 litres per 100 passenger-km, assuming a passenger load of 156 people, which translates to a fuel efficiency of 327.6 litres per 100 train-km.
• For the Northlander, the estimated fuel-efficiency would be 5.7 litres per 100 passenger-km, assuming a passenger load of 41 people, which translates to a fuel efficiency of 233.7 litres per 100 train-km.
• To recall, a North American "motorcoach" has a fuel-efficiency of 36.8 litres per 100 bus-km, thus 9 times less than a Corridor train and 7 times less the Northlander.

The only way to make passenger trains "greener" than a bus is to pack hundreds of passengers into a single train and to make sure that a significant proportion of these passengers come from more polluting modes rather than the bus (or induced demand)...

Thank you. Now the math makes sense.

Oh, and the same goes for not even bothering to mention to your MP that the feverish investment spree you are asking for would have almost no effect unless the federal government also commits to the most radical change of course in post-war industry policy:

Are you talking about rail transportation or housing? Or how we buy food? Or heat our homes?

Since I am asking for the reversal of cuts - Of which this party has done. That isn't very radical. Radical to move to daily? Maybe.....

 

[crs1026]

Since I am asking for the reversal of cuts - Of which this party has done. That isn't very radical. Radical to move to daily? Maybe.....

1) how many new passenger cars would it take to operate a daily pre-cut-equivalent service? What is that cost?
2) how many new workers would have to be hired to operate that level of service? What is their payroll cost including benefits and pension liability?
3) What load factor would you predict? (Hint: just because rhe summer Canadian sells out at two days per week, doesn’t mean there are seven days’ worth of customers waiting to take the added trains)?
4) So, all in, how much money would you estimate this proposal would cost the taxpayer in 2023 dollars?

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

1) how many new passenger cars would it take to operate a daily pre-cut-equivalent service? What is that cost?

Off the top of my head, I am guessing double what we have. Which means this is not something I expect to happen tomorrow. For some of the shorter routes, like the C-E route, ordering more of the Siemens fleet would work. For the rest, there is a plan fora long distance fleet renewal, so addit there.

2) how many new workers would have to be hired to operate that level of service? What is their payroll cost including benefits and pension liability?

I would expect it to be around double as well.

3) What load factor would you predict? (Hint: just because rhe summer Canadian sells out at two days per week, doesn’t mean there are seven days’ worth of customers waiting to take the added trains)?

A pimplier fix might be to have 1-=12 cars per train on the Canadian, but it be a daily. Once the existing Corridor fleet is retired, a lot of engines will become surplus.

4) So, all in, how much money would you estimate this proposal would cost the taxpayer in 2023 dollars?

- Paul

Quick math would say a doubling of the existing Via subsidy would be needed.I would not expect it to be done all at once, but could be a gradual thing. So, they could announce the C-E route this year. Next year could be he southern Canadian route. Then the STJ - Moncton - Halifax, and so forth. Once the new fleet arrives, use it to add routes and to increase frequency. I figure realistically, to reverse the cuts and to increase frequency to daily, it will take 10 years.

 

[lenaitch]

I would expect it to be around double as well.

Canadian currently runs once a week (more often in the summer?). To increase that to daily is a x7 increase. Reinstating runs that no longer exist is difficult to calculate but it would mean crews and rolling stock that currently doesn't exist, along with maintenance and all the other stuff that goes along with running a railroad.

I'm not sure where you get "doubling".

 

[micheal_can]

Canadian currently runs once a week (more often in the summer?). To increase that to daily is a x7 increase. Reinstating runs that no longer exist is difficult to calculate but it would mean crews and rolling stock that currently doesn't exist, along with maintenance and all the other stuff that goes along with running a railroad.

I'm not sure where you get "doubling".

It runs twice a week throughout the year. The length of the train changes.

The problem I have is I do not know whether adding more trains is a linear rise or not. For instance, if the breakeven point is 15 cars, and going to 20 cars actually increases the overall costs,then having 15 cars every day may actually save some money, but still cost some. I use double as a rough estimate to show that it won't be cheap.

 

[crs1026]

Off the top of my head, I am guessing double what we have. Which means this is not something I expect to happen tomorrow. For some of the shorter routes, like the C-E route, ordering more of the Siemens fleet would work. For the rest, there is a plan fora long distance fleet renewal, so addit there.

You do know where this is going, eh? The existing fleet has less than a decade's life left in it (and that is widely optimistic).Replacing the existing fleet is a $1B expense. I disagree with your doubling number.... more like triple at least to go from 2 days a week on one route to 7 days a week on two.

The government is most likely to decide that the $1B number is simply unaffordable. Pushing that number to $3B only makes that certain. The two train existing service is dead within a decade, period. Ride it while you still can.

Making the number "gradual" does nothing to make that sellable. Government is not that stupid. They budget and make decisions based on all-in life cycle costs.

Adding in the cost of interim Venture trainsets only makes that worse. And where will we maintain those trainsets, and how much to build those nIntenance bases?

A pimplier fix might be to have 1-=12 cars per train on the Canadian, but it be a daily. Once the existing Corridor fleet is retired, a lot of engines will become surplus.

Locomotives are a lesser expense. The equipment, and the daily crew costs, are the larger numbers.Also, you can't propose running shorter trains, That just guarantees lower revenue. To get to even today's (unfavourable) operating ratio, you need to sell out long trains,

Quick math would say a doubling of the existing Via subsidy would be needed.I would not expect it to be done all at once, but could be a gradual thing. So, they could announce the C-E route this year. Next year could be he southern Canadian route. Then the STJ - Moncton - Halifax, and so forth. Once the new fleet arrives, use it to add routes and to increase frequency. I figure realistically, to reverse the cuts and to increase frequency to daily, it will take 10 years.

And when your math proves excessively optimistic and gets headlines for being a
"cost overrun"? That's the scenario that politicians fear most. They want certainty that this won't blow up in their faces.

So even if "double" is possible, they will err on "triple" in their numbers to be safe.

The point being that today's "unity" subsidy is not easy to sell.... pushing it upwards is suicidal.

You are in fantasy land, and I'm not sure that our mounting rational arguments is much of an intervention to that. We seem to be feeding the bear by engaging with you on that.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

You do know where this is going, eh? The existing fleet has less than a decade's life left in it (and that is widely optimistic).Replacing the existing fleet is a $1B expense. I disagree with your doubling number.... more like triple at least to go from 2 days a week on one route to 7 days a week on two.

The government is most likely to decide that the $1B number is simply unaffordable. Pushing that number to $3B only makes that certain. The two train existing service is dead within a decade, period. Ride it while you still can.

Making the number "gradual" does nothing to make that sellable. Government is not that stupid. They budget and make decisions based on all-in life cycle costs.

Adding in the cost of interim Venture trainsets only makes that worse. And where will we maintain those trainsets, and how much to build those nIntenance bases?

I know that is one possibility.The other is the government decides that instead of just replacing what we have, to get enough equipment as an option so that it can be expanded.

A gradual approach is normal for a lot of government projects. They call them phases. The Crosstown in Toronto is a great example of phases;not so much on costs...

Locomotives are a lesser expense. The equipment, and the daily crew costs, are the larger numbers.Also, you can't propose running shorter trains, That just guarantees lower revenue. To get to even today's (unfavourable) operating ratio, you need to sell out long trains,

I do not want to go in there and act like I know all the answers. I know that I do not know all the answers. I am certain if asked, Via could provide an answer of the most economical number of cars such that it maxes our revenue while minimizing costs to operate it.

And when your math proves excessively optimistic and gets headlines for being a
"cost overrun"? That's the scenario that politicians fear most. They want certainty that this won't blow up in their faces.

So even if "double" is possible, they will err on "triple" in their numbers to be safe.

For them to release anything without having it costed out would be stupid. For them to release anything based on what a constituent says is also stupid. Governments are not this stupid.

The point being that today's "unity" subsidy is not easy to sell.... pushing it upwards is suicidal.

You are in fantasy land, and I'm not sure that our mounting rational arguments is much of an intervention to that. We seem to be feeding the bear by engaging with you on that.

- Paul

You may be right. That is why I am going in there being as realistic as I can and going in there with suggestions that are based as close to realistic Canadian views as I can. I fully expect that they will thank me for coming in and then I will not hear about this ever again.

So, to those saying this is all a fantasy, how do you get more meaningful passenger rail outside of the Corridor? Not, how do we accept this and expect it to get much worse.

 

[crs1026]

So, to those saying this is all a fantasy, how do you get more meaningful passenger rail outside of the Corridor?.

You look for the greatest population densities with the greatest volumes of road/air trips today, and/or the most serious congestion problems.... and the most favourable investment scenarios....and you design high frequency rail corridors that solve those real problems and leverage those real opportunities.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

You look for the greatest population densities with the greatest volumes of road/air trips today, and/or the most serious congestion problems.... and the most favourable investment scenarios....and you design high frequency rail corridors that solve those real problems and leverage those real opportunities.

- Paul

So, in your opinion, we do nothing. That is what your statement means for anything out of the Corridor.

 

[crs1026]

So, in your opinion, we do nothing. That is what your statement means for anything out of the Corridor.

The corridors that have the most potential have already been mentioned plenty of times. :My list would be Edmonton-Calgary, Calgary-Banff, Victoria-Nanaimo, Fredericton-St John-Moncton-Halifax. I'm not saying those are viable, I'm simply saying the hard numbers and the less quantifiable value proposition for those will beat any other route you propose... so if you want to have a reality based, forward looking discussion, they are the logical starting point.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

You look for the greatest population densities with the greatest volumes of road/air trips today, and/or the most serious congestion problems.... and the most favourable investment scenarios....and you design high frequency rail corridors that solve those real problems and leverage those real opportunities.

- Paul

The corridors that have the most potential have already been mentioned plenty of times. :My list would be Edmonton-Calgary, Calgary-Banff, Victoria-Nanaimo, Fredericton-St John-Moncton-Halifax. I'm not saying those are viable, I'm simply saying the hard numbers and the less quantifiable value proposition for those will beat any other route you propose... so if you want to have a reality based, forward looking discussion, they are the logical starting point.

- Paul

Most serious congestion -
Have you been to the Maritimes? None of that area is congested.
Once you reach Duncan, it is not congested. Even still, this is not a good Via route, but a good commuter route, of which Via does not do anymore.
The same can be said for the hgiways between Calgary and Edmonton.

This is actually why a phased approach would work best.Then they can make some sort of argument that they are reducing congestion.

 

[crs1026]

This is actually why a phased approach would work best.Then they can make some sort of argument that they are reducing congestion.

A phased approach between where? Do you have better city pairs to suggest?

I'm sorry, but I am sure itching to hit the Ignore button.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

A phased approach between where? Do you have better city pairs to suggest?

I'm sorry, but I am sure itching to hit the Ignore button.

- Paul

Instead of all the routes back the same year, do one a year, basing it on the ones that would be the most successful first.